Case 3306402/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Fox (Counsel). For the v Ms A Esmail (Solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306402/2021
- Decision date
- 14 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Matthews Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Fox (Counsel). For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Passenger Services Agent from 27 July 1987 and her effective date of termination was found to be 23 October 2020. She presented her unfair dismissal claim on 27 April 2021. Applying the combined effect of s.111 ERA 1996 and the ACAS early conciliation extension in s.207B ERA 1996, the tribunal found the limitation period expired on 5 April 2021, so the claim was late on its face.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been receiving ad hoc legal assistance from her brother, Sukhjit Ahluwalia, who was a solicitor and who held himself out in correspondence as acting for her. It found that he had been told by ACAS that redundancy claims had a six-month time limit, that this was passed on to the claimant, and that she was therefore under the mistaken belief that she had six months from termination to issue proceedings. The tribunal held that this fell within the Dedman principle, and that the fact the advice was free or informal did not take the case outside that principle.
The tribunal also considered the claimant's evidence that panic attacks and her mental health contributed to the delay. It accepted that this was a factor, but found it was not the main reason for the delay. The tribunal noted that she was able to apply for work and obtain temporary work, and that there was no medical evidence showing she could not have issued the claim before 5 April 2021 even though she managed to do so in late April 2021.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. The claim was therefore out of time, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it, and the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The hearing was a preliminary issue on time limits. The claimant's representative confirmed the claim was for unfair dismissal, not redundancy. The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time, it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction; the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle
- T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Singleton
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.